Okay, folks, we're gonna call this meeting of the City of Allentown Planning Commission order.

Uh first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the March 10th meeting.

Does anybody have any comments, corrections, or additions to the minutes that have been prepared?

Hearing none, those will stand approved as written.

And we'll roll right into item number two, which is an adaptive reuse project.

Turn it over to Ms.

Gomez for the introduction.

The first project is adaptive reuse at 322 to 324 North 7th Street.

Adaptive reuse is defined as the conversion of 65% or more of gross floor area of a principal building that was formerly occupied by non-residential uses.

The procedure here is for the planning commission to provide a comments and recommendations, which will be forwarded to the zoning hearing board for a final decision.

The subject property consists of two buildings.

This particular application only looks at the building on Hall Street, which is a one two-story manufacturing warehouse.

The applicant proposes to convert the manufacturing warehouse on North Hall Street into six dwelling units through the adaptive reuse process.

The other building has 12.

The renovation would create two one bedroom, two one bedroom with an office, and two two-bedroom apartment units.

Parking is located on the abutting lot at 315 319 North Hall Street under common ownership, which will be restriped for a total of 19 spaces.

The property is located within the MXC storefront mixed corridor, and the partially within the HBDO Historic Building Demolition Overlay District.

The zoning classifications allows the adaptive reuse as previously mentioned through special exception.

There are no other insufficiencies identified by zoning.

The immediate neighborhood along 7th Street consists of commercial, mixed use, smaller apartment buildings, and single family homes.

Applicant has provided elevations to show the proposed changes to the exterior of the existing building.

Shall be submitted to minimally show the street tree to be planted on an empty tree well along North 7th Street.

Replacement of any deteriorated curb and non-ADA compliance sidewalk, compliance with parkland dedication requirements, other land or fees, and compliance with sewage and planning and any utility connections.

The property is within the HBDO, but it the rear building is actually outside of the HBDO, so that way the HBO does not comply as a kind of interesting mapping.

This is also inside the historic district, so or not inside the historic district across the street from the historic district, so it's kind of nudged between a few various historic districts, but this particular building is not within either of those.

The project is within Center Allentown.

Center Allentown is the heart of the city where neighborhoods and entrepreneurs and small businesses and the community thrive alongside one another.

The adaptive reuse would support the comprehensive plans goal to create opportunities for smaller investment that would contribute to the housing supply.

Allentown works going through an analysis of all of the various applicable plans.

Allentown Works is a federally funded workforce development strategy that aims to transform communities by aggressively lowering prime age employment.

Housing is specifically not part of Allentown Works, but the jobs housing balance is important to the overall concept.

The proposal contributes by moving the neighborhood closer to having the jobs housing balance.

Welcome home is the city's housing plan.

With the housing plan, the city aims to preserve housing affordability, increase affordable housing stock, and assist low and moderate income threshold households find stability.

According to the housing study, the city's vacancy rate is between 0.8 and 1.4, and a healthy vacancy rate is between 5 and 8%.

So this addition of apartments will help the Allentown move closer to a healthy vacancy rate.

Staff suggests the commission inquire as the affordability of the proposed apartment buildings within this particular neighborhood.

This project is along 7th Street, and there are some projects along 7th Street plan for the future.

Citywide bike plan provide is uh developed to ensure infrastructure investments that promote safety and equity multimodal transportation for all members of the community.

The planned bike routes are shown within the backup and staff recommends bike racks be outdone and law indoor long-term storage.

Finally, the city's park plan is a comprehensive strategy to conserve and improve the city's recreation open space and park.

The project is in close proximity to uh old fairgrounds, Fifth Street Spray Park.

Um when this project is reviewed through a separate application, it will have to address the the park dedication requirements.

So in conclusion, staff recommends um approval with the following conditions.

One, a minor land development um be submitted to minimally show a street tree to be planted in the empty tree well, replacement of any deteriorated curb and EDA compliance sidewalk, compliance with parkland dedication, compliance with sewage planning, utility connections, um and those can all be made with the minimal um submittal requirements of a minor subdivision.

Um sewage planning, um bike racks, and um finally um we recommend you inquire about the units affordability.

Concludes my comments.

Okay.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Is there a representative for the project?

Yes.

Uh I'm Ron Rabitz.

On the uh uh uh applicant's attorney, as a point of clarification, I did submit the application.

I signed it, but on behalf of my client, Richard Bowers here.

Um understand all the comments.

I guess the first thing I'll I'll address the last issue, the affordability.

Mr.

Bauer can talk a little bit.

You you come up here.

Just talk about you have some units now and what you're anticipating in terms of rental.

The rents uh between nine and one thousand fifty for two bedroom.

So and that's consistent with some of the ones you have existing.

Yeah, the way we look because some of them were like real low.

If we raise them, people said we're gonna move.

Because I I try to, I've been doing this for 30 some years in the city of Allentown.

And you've owned this property over 25 years, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um we it was blighted.

It was yeah.

So we think we're gonna meet the requirements of low rental.

You can currently do as well.

So that's not a problem.

Um the only other comment uh we have no issue with any of the comments, quite honestly.

The and it sounded like you were saying this, but you know, obviously um we already submitted an application, we got to go to the zoning hearing board.

We understand why you know you may want a land development.

We're not gonna say we don't, but I presume we could have minimal requirements for that.

We're not doing any earth moving.

You know, there's a lot of requirements and potential cost associated with that.

So you know, we we don't have a problem with the conditions, but you know, we would like some guidance on that or a very simple plan.

You know, we prefer not to do that, quite honestly.

But we we will work with you, you know, whatever you require.

If I can clarify um the the standards that we would ask for, and we recognize that this is an existing building, so it's it's it is a bit different than some of the land development we see.

So um we're asked we'll ask for the submittal requirements of the minor subdivision, okay, which were are really far fewer and really just um aim to show the required connections in the sidewalks and in those other public elements.

Okay, that that's helpful.

I don't I don't think we have anything else unless you have any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um colleagues here have any questions?

Um I I don't know if there's um anyone that can answer this, but I'm I'm just curious as to what the difference is between a one-bedroom with an office and a two-bedroom apartment um unit is what makes one a two-bedroom and one a one-bedroom with an office.

Is that a fancy way of saying it's a two-bedroom?

Well, he had it planned out for eight units in there, and I said no, we don't want eight units, we just want smaller, so we went down a city.

I don't I don't I don't know why you're I'm not the architect.

Okay.

So it may turn out to be two bedroom.

Possibly possible could be.

Okay.

And that's that's fine.

I mean, I you know, they they it's a room with a closet that that's the same exact size as the other bedroom.

So I just I don't know if there's any difference.

It doesn't seem to be uh relevant to parking requirements or anything, um at least none that I'm aware of, but I would point that out to zoning that if for some reason there is a a parking um you know uh ratio that's somehow affected by bedrooms that you know those one bedroom with office if you look at that plan as we clearly you know two bedroom capable unit.

Um at least none that I'm aware of, but I would point that out to zoning that if for some reason there is a parking um you know uh ratio that's somehow affected by bedrooms that you know those one bedroom with office if you look at that plan as we clearly a you know two-bedroom capable unit and with respect to parking questions.

One of the things that I absolutely love about this new code is how streamlined our parking table has become.

It's just it's just simply one space, one parking space per unit.

There's no need to again the bedroom counts and such for that particular purpose.

Very good.

Okay.

Um just you know, one of the things, Jennifer, like you mentioned that the minor land development does you know, look for those basic compliance um elements and and with this you know, shared parking arrangement.

I'm curious, is will that trigger um some sort of lighting compliance through the minor land development?

If there I don't this parking lot was not it will not be is not currently planned to be combined with the adjacent building, so I don't think that it would require anything new within the parking lot.

There also would have been a there would have been an implied determination by the zoning office that since there wasn't any proposal to change the status quo with the parking lot that any nonconformities with respect to the configuration of that lot would be would be honored and allowed to remain.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Well, um, those are the questions that I had.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Uh just to expound on the exterior lighting.

Is there any exterior lighting like over the front doors, over the egress doors?

Any anything facing the parking lot from the building, anything along those lines?

That you're planning on.

Uh in the street.

Okay.

And then there's a dead-end alley where there are that full of the back here.

There's a street light on that, and there will be and then there's a street light, and there's a light on the back of the big building, and there'll be extra lights on that building on the back and the front, or the e-gresses are.

Okay, all right.

Okay.

And anything from the building facing the parking lot, anything new that you have on the building, just curious.

If we have to put a couple there, we can.

Just curious for safety reasons, that's all.

We could do that.

Okay.

That could be helpful.

Yeah, it's pretty bright there at all at night, but yeah.

Yeah, Eric, I was wondering um, with regard to accessibility, would these first floor units need to be accessible?

Like, could there be a certain percentage of that?

And I guess that would be a building code.

Yes.

Um that is a good question.

Do you do have you do have a first floor handicap unit?

No, we could do that, though.

Yeah, that's code you're gonna need to have one of those.

I think we'll 100% on that.

Yeah, you're gonna need to have one handicap unit on the first floor, which is accessible by one parking lot with an accessible path to get from that parking spot into the building into that into that unit.

There in the front.

Yeah, all of your all of your clearances for all your doorways getting in and everything will need to be co-compliant as well.

Yeah, okay.

Just something for you to keep in mind when you're going through your building permit or building plans and stuff.

Um okay.

Is there anybody in the audience interested in this application?

Okay, seeing none.

Um pretty straightforward.

Um, are we we're making a recommendation to the zoning hearing board?

Is that what we're doing?

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'd I'd make the motion to recommend approval of the special exception to the zoning hearing board, uh, subject to uh the zoning hearing board granting the conditions outlined in the city uh staff report as a as a condition of those approval.

All second.

Excellent.

As a clarification, would you like to add the additional lighting to be added to the building and lot?

Do you want that lighting?

It's not mandatory.

I just think it would be a safety issue, but okay.

To the extent necessary.

Yeah.

Very good.

Okay.

Um it's been motion and second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Thank you, Roma.

Good luck.

Thank you all.

Yep.

All right, next item on the agenda number three, land development 928 American Parkway Northeast.

Uh Jennifer, you can sorry, really quick, Jennifer.

Before you get started, I need to recuse myself from this item.

All right.

Thank you, Leslie.

The subject property is 928 American Parkway Northeast.

Um, the city's working with um AEDC to prepare the site for redevelopment.

Um project uh proposed is a 73,500 square foot manufacturing building.

It is located within the IM Industrial Manufacturing District.

It is also located within the RRO Riverfront Road Redevelopment Overlay District, which is an optional overlay district and is not used for this review.

The IM Zone is primarily intended to focus on a wide range of manufacturing and industrial uses.

Access to the subject building would be from the future extension of Riverside Drive, which also includes a 12-foot shared use bike and pedestrian trail, which has already been reviewed and approved by this commission.

The building is proposed to be split into three units at 24,500 square foot each, 82 parking spaces, 20 future parking spaces, 11 loading docks, and six truck parking spaces as shown on the plan.

A few comments on the plan.

Staff suggests removal of any excess impervious cover and replacement with landscaping.

Additional information is needed, including renderings and elevations, and some information about bike parking and bike storage and additional landscape buffers.

Additionally, portions of the property appear to contain steep slopes and are potentially within the floodplain or within the floodplain, possible floodway 500 100 and 500 year floodplain.

Additional information is needed to demonstrate compliance with zoning and floodplain regulations, and all of that is specifically detailed in the comment letter.

Allentown Vision 2030 complan.

This project is shown within the area that's within Center Allentown.

Allentown Vision 2030 recognizes Center Allentown as the heart of the city and the engine of economic opportunity for small businesses and large enterprises.

Development of the riverfront brings the city to the river, connecting neighborhoods to each other and the river.

Some of the comments received are to review any impacts to the hydrology and hydraulics of the floodway and to ensure that notes be added to the plan to provide enhanced protection in areas of the construction of the site that are adjacent to the floodway and floodplain zones.

I will note that the city has a floodplain coordinator.

She has commented on this submit all and will be involved throughout the duration of the project to ensure compliance.

This property is shown in the Lehigh Riverfront Master Plan.

The Lehigh Riverfront Master Plan envision the riverfront as a second downtown district.

This particular project is within zone eight of the plan, which includes the vacant and underutilized industrial sites north of the American Parkway Bridge.

The plan envisioned this area to be a working riverfront, including light industrial technology and manufacturing uses with skilled employments and jobs for Allentown residents.

The project is for future manufacturing uses.

Interestingly, when the Lehigh Master Plan was developed, there was still the rail service there.

So now plans have shifted quite a bit.

So the orientation of those buildings in the master plan compared to what we have today are understandably a bit different.

Now the building is able to utilize the Riverside Drive extension.

The first and six neighborhood plans.

Provide a reliable analysis of neighborhood conditions and identifies a series of recommendations to help guide future neighborhood level planning activities and initiatives.

Within the plan, it is noted that there are industrial lands and buildings spread throughout the wards as people have historically lived and worked within walking distance.

And many of those locations have been vacant for many years.

The community needs assessment survey that was completed as part of that plan noted that the reason why so many people were unemployed was due to the lack of reliable transportation and access to jobs.

So the project proposes to bring jobs to the wards.

Allentown works.

Allentown Works is a federally funded workforce development strategy of the city of Allentown that aims to transform communities by aggressively lowering prime age unemployment.

With notably, 928 American Parkway is a significant brownstone redevelopment opportunity identified in the Allentown Works program.

AEDC's acquisition and redevelopment is one of the several is one of several manufacturing projects to complete be completed through the EDA funded urban sites land acquisition program.

This pilot project provides a significant boost of capital to AEDC so that the organization can move quickly to acquire new brown fields using public funding and preserve development.

Reserve dollars for other development costs.

Initiating development of 920 American Parkway will mark a significant milestone in the Allentown Works program.

Staff is supportive of advancing a project like this, which adds good paying accessible walk-to-work job opportunities for residents within these neighborhoods.

Vision for the Safe Streets for All is for Allentown Streets to be safe and accessible to all community members who live, work, or visit Allentown, no matter their mode of their transportation.

As mentioned previously numerous times, the project has frontage along Riverside Drive and the DNL trail extension.

Staff is suggests the commission inquire how the track how tractor trailers are proposed to access major corridors and highways.

We additionally have a LAN to comment letter on this particular project.

The citywide bike plan aims to ensure that infrastructure investments promotes safety, equity, multimodal transportation, and sustainable urban development for all.

As noted throughout, this is located along the Riverside Drive mixed shared use trail.

Staff suggests long-term indoor bike storage be provided for employees.

Allentown Parks Plan is a comprehensive strategy to conserve and improve the city's recreation and open space in parks.

This project, some of the location, this is a large vacant site, is one option for recreational opportunities in the future.

However, there are other projects additionally, including, as mentioned previously, the DNL trail on the west side of the Lehigh River.

The project also shows a waterfront buffer, which is now required by the new zoning code.

Staff suggest the applicant ensures the path is constructed in accordance with the code.

Some public access easement to be determined in the future to satisfy any, can be used to satisfy any park dedication requirements in the saldo.

We also encourage you to coordinate with the adjacent property owners and the waterfront master plan phase two, since there is the opportunity to connect those.

If the commission would like any of those included in the final approval, please identify those.

And finally, any recommendation of approval should be conditioned on the applicant appropriately addressing comments in the city comment letter.

Concludes my comments.

All right.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Applicant present for the project.

Yeah, come up and Scott Ogger, I'm the executive director of the Allentown Economic Development Corporation, the applicant for the project.

Happy to, we don't know that we need to go through line by line, but happy to shed some light on a couple different items.

Just for clarification, our intent is to create a structure that has 36-foot clear interior ceiling heights, so the building probably be less than 40 feet tall.

I know the plans say less than 50, which is what the zoning ordinance requires.

We looked at that, and and we're uh Allentown's building stock, particularly in manufacturing buildings is really old, like the average building age is significantly older than most of the people in this room.

And as a result, the ceiling heights tend to be between 12 and 15 feet clear, which is significantly under what the market dictates today.

Um, and it seems that the market continues to push ceilings higher.

We rarely build brand new, we've done it, but we rarely do it, so our intent was to try and go as high as possible to try and mitigate the fact that most of the building stock is so short in ceiling heights.

So it'll be a one-story building.

So it's our intent to do one story.

I think a real significant substantial update or thing to report is regarding the floodplain.

We had Michael Baker International do an initial uh flood study just to see if we could fill the site.

Um let me back up a minute.

Um the FEMA map's actually incorrect, uh, hasn't been updated because the fill profile of the approach ramp coming into uh the American Parkway bridge created a substantial obstruction.

So the in it all the the show the FEMA shows only part of the the site in the floodplain, the entirety of the site is now in the floodplain based upon the the new uh calculations that were developed for American Parkway.

Um none of the except for maybe the immediately adjacent to the the ordinary high water marks of the Lehigh River, none of the site is in the flood way, or at least none of the developable sites in the floodway.

So uh we had we had contemplated with staff and and with our uh internal planning committee whether it makes more sense to pursue floodplain permits or if it makes more sense given the outcome of Michael Baker International study, um they indicated we could fill the entire site four feet and not impact the floodplain um in terms of um creating an obstruction.

So the intent is we we decided to go uh the route of doing a conditional letter of map revision, so we've engaged Michael Baker International to do that.

Uh the way that works is you develop a design, which we now have, um, and you do the calculations, the hydraulic uh calculations and provide that to FEMA and say, okay, here's what we intend to do.

Uh and then FEMA, this is the conditional part says, okay, if you build it that way, you know, we on conditioned on you building it that way, we will, with some additional steps and fees, um, actually amend the floodplain maps.

So our intent would be to actually fill the site and remove it entirely from the hundred-year floodplain.

So that it's a much more expensive approach.

Um, but given that um we don't know the intent.

Uh, this is a speculative building, so we don't know who the end user is.

Uh anytime you change users, anytime you move an anytime you move an outlet, anytime you do anything, if you're in the floodplain, you've got to apply for new floodplain permits.

If you have a new tenant, you have to file what chemicals are stored there, and that has to go through a flood review process.

So it's since AEDC does this type of work in the long term, we figured let's just do the Clomar route.

And if that's successful, then we'll actually do a formal letter of map revision and have the 100-year floodplain revised.

Uh while it does show three potentially subdivision into three spaces.

We did that just as an accommodation.

Um again, this is a speculative building.

We don't have a tenant or an occupant at this point in time.

Our preference would be to lease it to one user because that's just an easier landlord transaction and less expensive.

You don't have to build all the demising walls inside.

Um, but we felt it was important to create flexibility uh in the building.

Uh and that leads into the parking.

I saw the comments about the excessive parking.

Um, what's challenging?

Um, well, I agree with you, Mike, that the zoning ordinance now is much simpler in terms of parking.

Um, it derives off of number of employees.

Well, when you're building a speculative building, how do you know how many employees they're gonna be?

Uh so we used kind of a middle of the road number of a uh one employee per thousand square feet, um, and that would give you the 35 parking spaces.

However, um having desiring not to go through all of the stormwater calculations at the last minute when we're trying to onboard a tenant, um we developed the parking to be a little bit more conservative than that.

The building that I referenced before that we built in 2007 is an 87,500 square foot building that employs 160 people.

So that's one per like 530.

So depending on what the manufacturer is, you could need that much parking.

We just don't know.

So the intent was we're gonna show it, we're gonna run the uh stormwater calculations based upon that, and that way if we have to install it all, we already have the calculations done.

Um I'm pretty confident we won't need the extra paving or parking off to the south or the right.

Um, but again, we're we're showing that because we prefer to go through the process once.

And and quite honestly, it's hard to onboard tenants in terms of timing as it is.

So one fewer process to go through, um, would probably make that easier.

Um some other minor comments we can just deal with in terms of staff.

Uh another comment was about the the billboard.

Um we have no issue whatsoever about uh that's it was the comment that that should be subdivided off.

Um we have every intention of making sure that the city maintains control and maintains their revenue stream from that.

Uh, but it's just our opinion that a subdivision is not the most efficient way to do that.

Um as an economic developer, one of our key strategies is to keep as much real estate on the tax rolls as possible.

So if we subdivide it and attach it to the city's property, it comes off the tax rolls.

If we leave it and do a license area or some other type of legal mechanism, and we're happy to work with the solicitor's office to determine what that is.

I'm I'm confident that a subdivision is not the best approach, but we're committed to make sure the city maintains control of the of the uh billboard and continues to get all the revenue from the billboard as well.

Um as far as driveways and uh crossovers, um there is um yeah, I can go back to that.

Again, just like the ceiling height, um, most of the buildings that we own or have renovated and sold are urban and were designed way before 53 foot trailers were allowed.

And as a result, turning movements are challenging all the time.

So we we maximized the apron width, which I believe is 50 feet, David.

Is that so the aprons are are the max width, and so we we kept the driveways that wide until we got past the first set of drive-in loading docks just to make sure we've got good turning movement.

So we feel that the parking, if we can reduce that, we'd be happy not to pave as much.

But as far as um truck movements, um it's just challenging in the city that we actually have the space to do proper turning radii on this site, so it's our intent to provide that, uh, which is why the driveways are as wide as they are in certain locations.

You can see they get a little bit narrower as you as you revolve around it.

And this is set up for counterclockwise traffic, which is ideal for trucks.

That way, when you're backing into the loading dock, you're looking out your looking out your window.

Otherwise, if you try and do it the other way, all you see is the side of your truck if you went clockwise.

So this is designed to be proper counterclockwise.

Again, these are luxuries we usually don't have when we're doing reuse of manufacturing buildings.

Um there is a comment on the staff review or the review letter under 43 C talks about infiltration and infiltration testing, and and we'll as pointed out, we'll provide those notes because working with uh DEP, we're not gonna do infiltration based upon the environmental impairments that that are located at this uh at this site.

So this is a brown field for sure.

Um we had extensive testing done by EPA through a targeted brownfields assessment program.

Um EPA's cost to do that was close to a quarter of a million dollars.

And the site or the results determined that virtually the entire site has metals, hydrocarbons, uh all of which are above the residential standard.

Um however, all of them are below the non-residential standard except for a couple uh instantaneous locations of lead.

Um so we're doing some additional sampling with DEP, and those will ultimately just be capped underneath the the fill of the site.

And I think the only other comment I had, I can't remember if it was in the staff comments or the review or just the general letter, um, talked about the uh loading docks, which way the loading docks face.

Um this building is intended to have a green roof, and because of the elevation of American parkway, Mike and I discussed that while adjacent um functional access from American Parkway is just not plausible, and American parkway is a limited access road anyway, so um American parkway is really not the front yard.

Um so and then because it's so high up above it, I think a lot of the views are actually going to be on the to the roof and not to the elevations of the building.

So the fact that it's a green roof, I think will make it somewhat more attractive than just the a standard industrial roof.

But relative to the truck loading areas, I mean it's certainly not feasible for us to have a double front building.

Um because of the center line grade, if we've designed this to the center line grade of Riverside Drive, which has already obviously been designed.

Um, and because truck docks are usually 48 inches lower, in order to spin the building around and have the docks face Riverside Drive, we'd have to fill the site in another four feet to make it work.

Whereas this works out perfectly where we don't have to fill in the floodplain as much because as you go east towards the river, you can gradually drop the four feet over the face of the south or north face of the building and get tailgate dock access and less fill at that particular location.

Um I guess the only other question, and this is a question just in general, um we can make the building look like whatever you want, however, there's a cost to it, and I think this might be the first manufacturing building under the new zoning ordinance.

So we're not a hundred, we can draw an elevation.

Uh there's only a couple different flavors of buildings of this size.

It's either tilt top concrete, poured in place concrete, or steel building with you know metal siding.

Those are the general uh flavors of facades, and we're happy to provide that, but um I'm open to exactly what what the city might think is appropriate because there's really not a standard for this in the city.

I don't think it's happened before.

Um and again, um, you know, aesthetics are important.

I think this building is somewhat sunk down below uh American Parkway, and it's not going to be as visible as um or as prominent as as it might be in other locations uh or other orientations.

So we're certainly open to that dialogue, but uh as I mentioned, it's a brown field.

These are these projects are heavy lifts, which is why we're doing them and not the private sector.

Um so we can we can make it look like whatever you want, but the money has to come from somewhere, and it's not you know um, it's always a challenge when we're doing these these sites, uh, you know, a site that we recently completed uh at 606 South 10th Street, you know, it took us 12, 13 years and 5500 hours of staff time.

Um so just know that this is a this is a struggle, and we're doing everything we can to get back on the tax rolls.

Uh and I'll just leave you with one additional item that you some of you know because you've talked to me about it, but ADC's projects over its lifespan since 1979, our completed projects generate over five million dollars a year in real estate taxes to the school district, the city, and the county.

Um we don't get any of that revenue, but every time we put a property back on the tax rolls, the three taxing jurisdictions um have more um robust uh tax collection, and also we're generating tremendous economic activity from a site that's been essentially vacant for 50 years.

So happy to answer any questions.

All right, thanks, Scott.

That was uh excellent overview.

And um, yeah, I think I you know, I yeah, I'm I'm I'm a big fan of what you guys do.

I think this is uh, you know, a uh an perfect example of what you do, and and and I agree, you know, you who else is gonna do it other than your organization.

So I personally applaud the efforts and uh this project in particular.

Um I'll talk for just a minute about aesthetics because you know I obviously have a you know, and and and and I think I think there's a simple way to to possibly um look at this without you know blowing up the budget, but but also you know, we constantly are seeing you know more buildings and properties, you know, getting undone down in this area, and we're losing what what remnants we have of any sort of architectural heritage of our industrial past.

And while I know you know, doing this building in brick or anything like that is completely out of the question, but but I think really what it could come down to is really just right the right colors and you know um textures in a way that's not necessarily the real thing, you know, that that could help bring some of that historical past, you know, whether it's you know, iron oxide kind of colors or just sort of like you know, almost like like you would like you would see in the former really high structural steel buildings that came down, you know, or you see in you know the the building that we just lobbied for last month, what was that building called?

Um the sesame, you know, that you know, these long rectangular industrial buildings, you know, they what whether they were brick in the past or if they were rusty metal, you know, I think there's an opportunity aesthetically just by just by color selection alone where you can kind of you know provide a little hint to the past and and maintain a little bit of that industrial flavor down here.

So I don't think it has to blow the budget.

I think it can be done.

I think that I mean, in terms of color, um, if you're doing tilt-up concrete, that's a long-term maintenance issue.

Because I don't know, I I I guess maybe you could do dyed tilt-up concrete, but that sounds that sounds unconventional.

So, in terms of color, it almost seems like we're looking at you know the preference might be uh uh a metal a metal building with metal siding.

Yeah, because that wouldn't require I mean because just any time you paint masonry, it lasts for like five years, and that's it.

No, I I I agree, and and but honestly, I think tilt-up concrete is like you know, that's like Lei Valley Industrial Park type, you know.

Yeah, but it's also that's that's the top shelf, yeah.

That's where you're gonna get the highest rents, it's the highest product that's class A space.

Yeah, as opposed to it's much more durable than metal frame buildings.

So just we'll we'll certainly consider all of that.

And again, till we don't have cost opinions on either method of construction at this point, and depending on what the economy does, that may or may that may or may not push us from one one to the other.

Okay.

Um and um so would would the end result be that you guys would would likely see this be sold off to an owner or or maintained as a tenant relationship?

We have um as we approach brown fields, there are so many ways the projects can fail, and there are very few ways that they say they can succeed.

And we've found that if we enter a project with a preconceived notion of it's going to be a uh hold and lease or a uh uh renovate or develop and and sell, that just narrows the the paths.

So we're generally open to either.

Um our initial intent on this would be that we would probably keep it and lease it.

Yeah.

Um but you know the market will dictate that.

I I know that I I believe that L VIP has a building under construction right now and it's not even complete and they sold it already.

Yeah.

So now L VIP has a different um uh mission and uh approach than we do, so yeah.

That's yet to be determined.

Right.

Gotcha.

But it's our intent to I mean, one of the reasons that we'd like to lease it um is that way we get to control the tenant, and you know, we'd like to we've found that in these small square foot buildings the 30 to 80,000 square feet, um they tend to be more manufacturing uh rather than logistics.

Although we have some last mile logistics in the city, but they tend to be small footprint and the track trucks in and vans out, which isn't nearly as uh uh impactful on the traffic.

Um but the other thing that we found is when it's manufacturing, you tend to get a much more robust um employment per square foot.

Like we did, like I said, on the other building where it's one employee for 534 square feet, which is again as economic developers, that's what we want.

Yeah, um, is more employment.

So that's another reason why we'd ideally like to keep it.

But on 606 South 10th, we sold that because it was it made sense.

And it was a robust manufacturer, a regional manufacturer who was consolidating within the city and they had an interest in owning, so we negotiated a sale in that case.

So now I I you know I understand I guess the zoning would would allow it, and it's really not necessarily our our our say in the matter, I suppose, but it's set up like it could be a warehouse building.

I mean, is there any chance that you think you see this just being used as a low employment, you know, warehouse storage type building?

We deliberately did not festoon the entire east facade with loading docks because we did not intend this to be a highly attractive for logistics.

Right.

Um but I mean at the number of loading docks we've shown complies with the zoning ordinance if we break it up into thirds.

Yeah, um so it might be maybe an extra one or two, but we didn't we deliberately did not go overboard with loading docks because it's not our intent to to push this as a uh logistics building.

But manufacturers need to need loading uh in and out as well.

Absolutely, yeah.

Agreed.

Um almost every manufacturer has some portion of their site is used for store stockpiling raw materials and finished goods too.

So there is some amount of logistics built into a manufacturing center.

Sure.

Um the other thing I don't really remember um if it was touched on in the intro or not, but what's the what's the game plan with if Riverside Drive, you know, lags behind and and have you looked into the uh opportunities for temporary access and would that be something that you would do?

Yeah, and it it again determines you know, we we don't have a full-blown plan for how we're gonna go vertical at this point in time.

We're still working through brownfields, we're still working through the land development, so we're and we're still working through the floodplain.

Uh and we also have Barry Ison associates um designing half-mile-long utility extensions to get from Furnace Street to here.

So this is we've got five engineering firms working on this project.

So we don't know how we're how at what point we'll get to go build vertical.

Yeah.

Um so we'll kind of play that by ear.

But this the city um review letter does contemplate that you know we either need a Riverside Drive to get a CEO or an alternative access plan, and we'll we'll deal with that when we get there.

I think it's plausible to do some type of um temporary access.

Yeah.

Um, but we're not gonna put a lot of energy into designing that until we know we're there.

Right, right.

Quick question about the filling to the floodplain.

I was thinking of this as you were talking about it, and then you even mentioned, you know, that the four-foot drop in the rear for the dock elevation.

Would that then put your truck court in the floodplain?

And that and that's okay, just not the floor elevation.

Is that I guess the theory is you can move trucks.

Right.

Can't move the building.

Right.

Right.

Okay.

Well, I think that helps, because that was one of my the first thought that I had, you know, when you talked about raising the four feet of the site, you know, and the relationship already, I think you know, the only criticism I have of the plan, and and I realize it's not it's not on purpose or anything, but um, is the relationship of the riverfront pathway and the and the truck court paving that looks to be about a five-foot separation, you know.

Um and and I and I think that there needs to be a whole nother level of of landscape and an understanding of how that that riverfront walk path, you know, is ultimately configured, but um, I would I would I would argue a little bit that if our intent is to to make it the facade of the building appear to capture some of that manufacturing history, why are we so hell bent on shielding the public from looking at it?

Well they either make a nice buffer or make the building look nice, but doing both doesn't make sense.

Well, I I I would agree with that, but I don't know about you know the the you know pedestrians recreating five feet from the truck court that we in there in this particular case we've got you know it's been proposed by the city that we have the Riverside Drive recreational trail already to the west, and that now it's been proposed that there be a trail to the east, and we've shown that.

Um but again, we're it's a manufacturing building, and the city'd like us to have pedestrian and recreational paths on both sides of it.

We gotta we gotta do the manufacturing somewhere.

Yeah, right.

Okay.

Well, I'm just telling you what my you know what my observations are.

And then you know, the comments relative to visual access and physical access.

Um, does that still apply even though it's not in the they're not using the RRO, did they still have to comply with the Yes.

The um with the Saldo revisions, one of the elements that was added was new waterfront requirements, which wasn't previously part of the Saldo.

So this would be the first project within the city's uh proposed to the city that would be adjacent to the to the river with the new saldo.

And so and and correct me if I'm if I understood this great so that it's it's a visual access of a visual easement or whatever for 20 feet wide, is that what it was?

Um there's a lot of specifications into the code, so I'd have to go and grab each one of them.

But the basic idea is to provide a waterfront buffer so that way there could be walking, um biking along the river the Lehigh River, and then it would need uh we use a term upland connection.

I need to grab the actual code.

And the idea is then that you need to get to that path somewhere somehow.

So to put some sort of an upland connection or access to future riverside drive.

Um I will note that there's um visual um requirements.

I don't think it would affect this project because you only have I think less than 300 feet along um the the river, but on other projects um there are requirements then for visual um access every um so hundred feet, which could theoretically for another project block um or or prevent the the mass of a building without some sort of view.

Okay, yeah, I I know I noted the comments in here about the vision.

I think we're just over 300 feet, so I think we might have one.

So if we do end up tying the the riverside trail into Riverside Drive along the north end of the property, I think that connection would serve as that visual connection as well.

I think that's that's what I was thinking.

Um there's another question uh the the comment about um uh question the staff letter asked how our trucks gonna move around, and of course the this the review letter said that we need a transportation impact study.

So I I don't know the answer until we do the transportation impact study.

But I mean, I guess my other argument is this has been zoned industrial for a very, very long time.

So it's a use permitted by right, it'll have to work it out, but it may not be you know, truck movements in the city, like if if some of our existing buildings, like if you made us permit them now, they you wouldn't be able to show that trucks can get there, despite the fact that they do.

Right.

Yeah, I assume it was just a general understanding of what if any other off-site improvements or concerns would be, you know, getting to your major regional routes and corridors.

Um I think was the idea, more so than the on-site circulation.

Well, and again, Riverside Drive's a brand new road.

It's one it's one building.

So I mean, there are there are intersections all throughout the city that struggle with 53-foot trailers, which was you know, that was a federal mandate.

Um city's still trying to catch up to unfunded federal mandates in terms of truck turning movements, as are all cities.

Yep, yeah.

All right, guys, I it's all I have, I think.

I got a few.

Go ahead, Greg.

Um just to touch on that a little bit.

Um obviously don't know what you have to do the TIS and all that first, but I would I would assume it'd probably be you know using like Jordan Drive to get that way from that access to get to the facility.

It's hard because obviously this is one where the road isn't built yet.

Well, and even when the road is built, I mean we have we operate several manufacturing we we own and operate 440,000 square feet of manufacturing space now, and despite our tenants instructing their third-party logistics drivers which way to go, truckers just follow the GIS, the GPS and the GPIS GPS is almost never the right.

So we can I can tell you which way they're gonna go until I can get in and like somehow fix that the GPS.

I what I tell you is not likely to be what happens in the field.

Right.

No, I just obviously be concerned if it going down like Allen Street, something that's not hard to accommodate, but you know, it's what can you do?

I understand that.

Um and I just want to check um in the uh staff report.

Um do you have any objections to any of the comments and recommendations that the city propose?

Um, page nine.

Um just save us all time.

Is there anything you object to in there?

I'm gonna guess there might be some things we want to have a dialogue about.

I I think I'd stop short of objecting.

Oh, I mean, there is a concept, there is a discussion about a steep slope analysis, and I know that that Mike personally visited the site.

The only steep slopes other than those that are on the Lehigh River bank, which we are not going to touch because that's in the floodway, um, are the result of uh uh illegally placed stockpile fill.

So they're they were not created by nature, so they're not in my opinion, regulated.

So I don't think a steep slope analysis is worth anything, you know, worth doing.

And again, we talked about you know we we don't intend to comply with any floodplain regulations because it's our intent to formally remove the site from the FEMA 100-year floodplain.

So that's and I guess the only other not objection, but something that we want to discuss is the the concept of how much do you want us to to really address the facade versus screen the site from public view?

And to me, the the two seem somewhat um counterproductive that if we're gonna make the building look really attractive, um, then just cover it up with screening that seems like not ideal.

So I'm not saying we're not gonna do one or the other, but we'll just need to figure out you know, as work with the city to figure out how we want to treat facades, which facades make sense to maybe invest more um money in aesthetics versus others, and then see what's left in terms of how we want to um create buffers, but I think it's really not more, it's not so much buffers because I think as someone who's uh a proponent of urban manufacturing, the notion of dividing the city from dividing the manufacturing from the employees kind of goes against the whole concept of form-based zoning.

Like, why do we want to isolate one from the other?

So to me, the buffers are more about framing views and and capturing um you know selected elements of of maybe the riverfront or screening the the dumpster um or some of the trailer parking, as Chris pointed out, as opposed to just like it's done in the suburbs where you build manufacturing and you just completely entomb it in permanent green space to the point where the employees, if they were walking, couldn't even figure out where to go to get into the space.

And so we're trying to to build proper infill urban manufacturing.

I think there's gonna be some some nuance and and back and forth as to how do we do that.

And this is the like I said, the first case through this ordinance, and we're happy to have a really meaningful dialogue with the city to make sure we try and get it right and do something that makes sense, but also not be duplicative or or or wasteful in terms of cost.

Right.

Makes sense, Scott.

So I besides the steep slopes and floodplains and obviously the continued dis facade discussions, you you're okay with all the other recommendations in the as a condition.

Yeah, other than other than what I said about the the parking.

I mean, we're gonna leave the full parking design and the stormwater accommodates all of it.

Uh if we don't have to build it all, we certainly won't.

Um but yeah, I'm actually hopeful we do because that means we've employed that many more people who can walk to a high-paying manufacturing job.

Right.

Thank you.

Yeah, just as we're discussing the facades and things like that, I'm interested in what a couple of murals to kind of depict the history we're talking about about might look like, or um the green roof in particular, I think will be really neat.

I'm curious what it might look like to have green walls or other um spaces where we're intentionally screening in the way that you're talking about.

Um anything that we can do to again mitigate any of the flood concerns that we've been talking about too would be really interesting, and I'm excited to see this one continue to develop.

Sure.

I mean again that I think the flooding won't be a problem at all because we'll we'll we've already done initial calcs to show that if we raise this the building out of the floodplain that that won't impact the the conveyance of flood waters.

Um and I think that'll we'll find that FEMA is satisfied with that.

Um and the green roof has some robust benefits to us as a developer, so it's good that it's attractive.

Um we're not opposed to a mural, but at the same time, we'd have to know who was maintaining that because that just adds cost, and as I mentioned, as we put these properties back on the tax rolls, the three taxing jurisdictions get the benefit of that.

We don't.

Um organization for operating is is 96% funded by program revenue.

So we need every dollar that we earn.

Um and uh adding extra extra maintenance to a already long lead time heavy lift brown field reclamation is just more headwind.

So understood.

Um I think it's a great project.

Uh I'm happy to hear that you're committed to the green roof.

I think that's great.

Have you considered any gray water collection, any solar panels to take that a little step further at all in your design?

We haven't.

Solar panels and green roofs don't always play well together because one shields the you know, one prevents the other.

They're kind of mutually exclusive.

So we found that in in carst geology, particularly on impaired sites, that green roofs are a really good benefit.

Infiltration is something that DEP doesn't want to see, uh, nor do we.

Otherwise, the the concept is if you do infiltration, you'll just take all of those impairments that I previously discussed and put them right into the Lehigh River, which we don't want to do.

Um so we're really committed to the green roof because it has those other ancillary benefits relative to the brown field.

Um in terms of gray water, uh, again, that really starts going back to who the end user is.

Like, does that make sense depending on the end user?

It might make sense to collect it for you know a handful of urinals, probably not.

Um, but again, something that you know, that's that's interior MEP needs to be designed to do gray water, and we don't know who the tenant is yet.

So that's challenging to figure out at this point.

So thanks.

Um Scott, quick question.

Um is the was the grading plan that's been submitted.

Does that reflect the four-foot fill?

It does.

Yep.

Okay.

I was I was curious about the transition off of Riverside Drive.

So essentially what we've done is um obviously on the east side, there's tailgate height, four-foot tailgate height docks.

And then for each of the three proposed or potential interior units, there is one drive-in door.

Um, one is at the northwest corner, one's at the southwest corner, and one's dead center in the middle, because that's there's no other place to put it.

Yeah, so those are all drive-in at grade.

So essentially along the two short sides of the building, the north face and the south face, you're having a gradual slope that makes up that four feet.

So you you fade away from Riverside Drive down to the river moving east, which sets up really well to give you drive-in docks and tailgate docks, because that's the challenge without knowing who the tenant is.

Some have to have one or not the other, some need both.

So we're trying to anticipate uh and be open to as many tenants as possible by having 36 foot clear to the ceiling, uh, low low low truss and uh drive-in and tailgate docks for all three potential units.

Understood.

Um I I don't see it here, but I assume you actually is Riverside Drive, has the grading profile been done for that roadway?

And this ties in.

Okay, because it it doesn't, it's not clear as to whether it's tied into those proposed grades or if it's actually tied into the survey in that area, but okay.

Yeah, the only the only change we made and we worked through the city and pend was to coordinate curb cuts uh at the two locations of our driveway crossovers, and we coordinated with the the public works office and pendot on that.

Gotcha.

So hopefully if everything works, Pendop's plans show curb cuts right where they're supposed to be.

But yeah, we didn't all turn around and look at Minal.

We did not make any changes to Riverside Drive.

Yeah, okay.

And and I I read through the the city comment letter and I don't remember seeing it exactly.

But are we how are we treating that multi-path, the multi-purpose bike path, the 12-foot shared path?

How do we how are we dealing with that across the driveways?

It's just an apron.

It's a concrete apron.

I don't know.

Yeah, and it looks like just it's intended to just be a paved driveway.

Um gotcha.

Yeah, they're wide, but we're tending intending to treat them just like any.

I mean in a dense area, this would be a lot of paving, but when you think about the fact that like there's it's a half mile from Furnace Street to the center of this site, that's how long the utilities have to get extended.

So it's not like we're just piling up crossovers for the pedestrians to go across.

There's two.

And they're you know, over the course of you know, three quarters of a mile, you're gonna have two driveways you have to go over, which is and and I've got no problem with that.

I just um oh, here we go.

Provide a blow-up detail for the two proposed crossovers.

Okay.

There you go.

I didn't remember seeing that before.

Okay, is there anybody in the audience that's interested in this application?

See none.

Um, I think we've got a pretty good understanding of um what the items of concern are.

I don't think this will be the last time we we talk about it, just given the fact that we've got some time associated with um potential access and when this thing might get underway, but um there does seem to be a pretty clear understanding of what the conditions may be.

Um otherwise, but uh would like to make a motion to move this for Jennifer.

What are you thinking?

If if I can clarify how I have the conditions written now.

If I can clarify how I have the conditions written now.

Um the staff recommendation includes a summary of um considerations for the project.

So the language reads now, demonstrate how the applicant has considered all of the summary recommendation, summary of recommendations on page nine of the city staff report, incorporate elements of the city's architectural or considering um actually incorporating elements of the city's architectural and historic will pass into the final design is encouraged, for example, colors, textures, metals, murals, et cetera.

Um, and applicant must comply with the city comment letter dated April 9th, 2000 2026 I might strengthen some of the things like the sidewalks between riverside and the building as a requirement rather than just to consider relative to the upland connection, yeah.

Which would then serve the site line connection, which would also potentially meet the recreation.

Yeah, everything regarding the upland connection and then the water front buffer, those are within the code.

Those are required.

So I think there's no concern that those will be provided.

They will be.

Um the the sidewalk and walkways connected to the building to the sidewalk.

I think that is in the code too, but we'll still we can put that in as a requirement.

So want to confirm that there's an understanding of those conditions.

You're looking for sidewalks, because there is a sidewalk along the west facade of the building along the parking lot.

Just from the roadway to the building, because there wasn't one shown on the plan.

Just five-foot concrete, however, it fits in there.

So it'll have to be it'll have to be flush of the paving because to do it outside the I don't want it to cross the truck traffic vehicle ways.

I want to avoid pedestrian and vehicular conflict.

So it would have to be within the parking area.

So to do it as a concrete raised sidewalk doesn't make sense.

Well, some accessible pathway to the building.

Yeah, I think it can be a crosswalk through the parking lot and then just get back on to something other than the driveway to get to the Riverside Drive multi-path.

Yeah.

All right.

So can we just make a motion to ratify um Jennifer's summary of the conditions?

We feel good about that.

All right, well, I'll make that motion.

I'll second.

Here we go.

Oh, what's that?

I went last year.

All right.

Myself and Kate.

Okay, any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Ayes have it.

Thank you all very much.

Wish you luck and look forward to seeing more developments on this project.

Okay, last item is our zoning amendment.

Uh Jennifer, and take it away.

Okay.

Um today we're presenting Bill 2026 as a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance initiated by city staff in order to add regulations for the data center use.

A copy of the bill is attached as exhibit A.

Um, data centers is an emerging use within the Lehigh Valley and across the country.

Um currently, the Allentown zoning ordinance does not specifically define a data center use.

And without specific regulations, the use could potentially have negative effects on public health, safety, and welfare.

The amendment is proposed to ensure the city has regulations in place for a data center use that will mitigate any negative potential impacts.

Staff has been receiving inquiries for this use over the past couple of months.

Other municipalities in the area have already or are in the process of amending their zoning ordinance.

I believe at the last LVPC meeting, they had stated that there was 16 pending or approved uh data center ordinances going on throughout the very um throughout um the counties.

Um this proposed bill uh reviewed um many of the other municipal ordinances that had been adopted um prior to this, uh including Palmer Township, which we have to credit um Craig Beavers here as being the second, as I heard you say.

Okay, as putting forward the second data center ordinance, so that helped a lot and do a lot of the legwork for the other communities then.

So we're all looking at some of these others' features and and incorporating what works for each of our municipalities and what's what's frequent.

So at that point in time, we had uh South Whitehall, Palmer Township, Upper McCunji, Laudon County to use as models.

Um there's now been quite a few others.

Um we also looked at Penn Futures data center model ordinance.

Um again, um, luckily other people have attempted this before us, so we we got to use um uh their information.

And finally, the Lehigh uh LVPC industrial land use guide and some of the staff reports that they made commenting on other people's data center ordinances so that way we could incorporate some of that feedback in our first proposal.

So uh this um is pretty extensive in terms of evaluating various impacts that affect not just zoning but throughout the city.

So uh this was um created and reviewed by many departments and bureaus, including CED, public works, fire health, um, sustainability was key to connecting us to the environmental advisory um council.

And we received comments at various steps out of the way and incorporated that feedback and sent the final draft to the solicitor's office for review on March 4th.

Um that bill was introduced and forwarded to the planning commission, both here and L VPC.

LVPC will issue a comment later letter later this month, um and then we'll have their comments as well, um, bring together then um planning commission LVPC any comments.

It'll go to the CED committee, and at that point they'll decide if it's ready for advertisement.

Umce it is advertised, um, then uh then we have the the pending ordinance or pending zone pending zoning doctrine.

I think I messed up that name, but um uh essentially then it would apply to new um new facilities.

Um the ordinance includes an updated use table.

The proposed use is um permitted by special exception, which means zoning hearing board approval.

We actually baked in some other reviews as well.

Um, but sp in no case is it a permitted by right.

So special exception approval and IG and an IM industrial districts.

Um we included a map of where those districts are throughout the city.

Um we have the new use category under the manufacturing and industry group, um, includes a description of the use, supplemental regulations.

Um we're adding regulations for things like setbacks from the right-of-way, um, from other uses like residential schools, um, those um types of sensitive uses, and for anything over 50,000 square feet.

So now we're starting to talk about the large scale.

So any large scale then will be limited to the larger watts.

Um it's defined within the IG as a five-acre minimum, and then within the IM as an eight-acre minimum.

And what that does is carry forward uh a logistic center requirement that we have within the new zoning code currently.

So we'll require landscape buffers, a narrative description of the use, an environmental impact, noise and vibration study, water and sewer utilization report, um, power supply and energy management report, electronic waste plan, um, thermal impact mitigation plan, emergency response plan, um, some uh light requirements for building aesthetics.

Um it wouldn't be required, or excuse me, I'll I'll just specify that in most other building types we have a lot of details within the foreign based code, but our industrial is pretty um liberal.

So we have building aesthetics, um off-street loading, maximum building height requirements for submittals, and review um city agency reviews.

So for these, like any special exception that involves a change of use, or excuse me, change of site plan, it would come before the city or planning commission for recommendation to zoning hearing board.

This one will go to the city planning commission as well as the environmental advisory committee, and if needed to comment on the trees, potentially the Shade Tree Commission as well.

And um, with all of those technical analysis that are submitted, um, they'll need to be accepted either by our city engineer or by some 30-party consultant if they get um extraordinary extraordinarily detailed.

So the staff report includes the locations where they are greater or where they would be allowed within greater than 50,000 square feet.

So those are where the five and eight acres are.

We changed the coloring a little bit to note if they are adjacent to some residential or school use.

They could still go there, but they would need to have a really substantial setback.

So the comments supporting the proposed amendments have been received from the Allentown Advisory Council, which we appreciate, and they're included within the exit um backup, so um available for any questions.

All right, thank you, Jennifer.

Thank you guys all, you know, for the work that you put in and the and the information that you provided to us as backup.

I guess the the one question that I well, two thoughts.

One one is a question about understanding the so the special exception goes to the zoning permit, right?

Basically, the use permit is a special exception.

But you know, it it's and then it goes to the land development application.

I mean, there's no there's no real process here, right?

Where where it would where it would go for a zoning permit and not come before a land development or am I missing something so that's not likely, or there's it's not likely that given the industrial building stock of a city and some of these sites where uh where a data center could be proposed without requiring some level of site improvement substantial enough to trigger land development.

In most cases, if we if an applicant attempted to come in through zoning at minimum, it's it's the director of planning and zoning who is the authority to determine when a project has triggered the the definition of land development under MPC at minimum, and probably walking the application back to to ask is this land development.

There would be a hypothetical scenario I could see where there might be some kind of white elephant billing off the top of my head.

I think maybe the maybe the World War II era quantit height huts up at the up at the city maintenance garage or something like that that could be retrofitted.

But my understanding of the use itself, and Jen correct me if you think otherwise, is that there's likely to be substantial enough site improvement needed to accommodate the use that it more likely than not probably a nine times out of ten would trigger a land development requirement.

Okay.

I think in all likelihood, yes.

I don't want to rule out the impossible in case they can fit everything, they don't need generators, they don't need you know, they're uh you know, I don't know, we would have to make that decision in the time, but what we can say definitively, with exception of those that are you know, there's a few floating around now, and this isn't adopted yet.

But so there's a handful of um uh of projects, but otherwise, once this is in place, um the planning commission would minimally get consulted before any special exception use, and through that process, we would look at land development as well, and whether that would need to be required, which in most cases is likely yes.

I gotcha.

Okay.

Um so when it says that the applications for approval of data center use projects should be referred to the planning commission, blah blah blah for review and comment.

It's it's really still sort of advisory at that point.

It would be advisory, yes.

And then we could comment at that point in time based on our analysis and our assessment whether land development would require would be required based on the changes.

Gotcha.

Sort of like adaptive REOSIS.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, that was predominantly my my, you know, I'm I'm gonna say it just because I I feel like it should be said it's gonna sound self-serving, but I think you know, of all times to require you know a little bit more professional um credentials for landscape and buffering.

I think this ordinance should have probably included a registered landscape architect involved in the plan preparation, but I I don't think it's worth kicking this back and starting the process over.

But um, I recognize some of our examples did uh or do include that, and I just think um something this important perhaps, you know, relative to protections to adjacent properties shouldn't be left to um just anyone when there's recognized credentialed professionals out there that could do it and should do it.

We can look into that as well when we get any feedback from LVPC, how many changes we would need to make and how that would change the approval path as a result of making those changes.

Okay, those are my comments, folks.

Anybody else with respect to the preparation of a plan by a landscape architect?

The the core language in our zone ordinance concerning the acceptability of site plans already touches on, already touches on the location of any proposed planning and seeding, which is essentially a landscape plan.

There's language in there that can require a certified plan to be prepared.

So putting those two together, I do believe the code would give me the authority to require the involvement of a landscape architect for the sake of zone review.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience wish to address this agenda item.

No?

Okay.

Um so our duty today is uh is a recommendation.

Um, you know, I think we recognize that we haven't received the Avalley Planning Commission's review, which we would normally entertain under other circumstances, but I think given the nature of this um agenda item, I think we can um move it forward um without uh particularly as a advisory or recommendation only.

So um this would be a recommendation to city council, right?

And then just to clarify from our conversation, if there's no other changes to this, it's not coming back.

This is our our one and only recommendation, right?

Okay, and if there is changes, then likely it may come back if yeah.

I mean we'll we'll look at how minor the changes are.

Anything that starts to change the substance, absolutely.

No, I mean I don't I don't think it yeah, I I'll leave that to your discretion.

Um okay, very good.

Somebody care to make the motion.

I I make a motion to favorably recommend the proposed ordinance to city council.

All second.

Okay, motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

All right, eyes have it.

That's uh that's uh big news.

That's good stuff, guys.

Um what is the potential best case scenario timeline?

Do you think?

Do you guys have a projection?

I anticipate we'll get the um L VPC comments back within the next two weeks, and then um we can start moving in May to CED and then um City Council.

If we have to start repeating steps, um that will delay it, but otherwise, I think as as soon as May we can hit CED and then public hearing, probably May June.

Yeah, right.

Okay.

Well, good job.

Well done.

I think it's just in time, probably.

Who knows?

Um, but that's good stuff.

I really appreciate the effort on that.

Um Jennifer and I had a little sidebar conversation about you know, the next step maybe is the recreational marijuana and stuff.

We probably ought to get a head start on any sort of potential um special language for for those types of uses because I suspect we'll see that come down the pike at some point in the future.

Um all right, any other business?

All right, we'll stand adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.